About your Search

20130422
20130422
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
and a house committee is set to look whether or not it should actually continue. chief correspondent jim angle is live in washington with more. hi, jim. >> reporter: hello, jenna. what started out as an effort to by ronald reagan to help people in rural areas to have a phone in case of emergencies what critics suspect is a new welfare program, listen. >> the cost has gone from $143 million a few years ago, to $2.2 billion today, a 15 times increase. >> reporter: now the cost of the program lept after cell phones were added in 2008. only those on low income programs such as welfare and food stamps legally qualify. but lawmakers say the program is out of control. >> i got a solicitation for a free phone at my apartment which is certainly not in a building where you're going to have people who are qualified for free phones. there is clearly money being wasted here. >> the fcc said in a recent year there were 270,000 beneficiaries that had more than one of these subsidized cell phones that is completely against the law right there. >> reporter: now funded by a small tax on all phone bills you can
with international security expert with the mit security studies program, dr. jim walsh. have you done any studies as far as cost/benefit? because that's the other thing i'm concerned about, the ramping-up of security and the billions of dollars being spent. is it being spent with some benefit? >> yeah, it's a great question. i was in boston on 9/11 sitting in front of a camera like this talking about the challenges that day. and you know, i find myself 12 years later in the same situation. and in that intervening time, we've spent a lot of money and a lot of time and effort trying to improve security and trying to train, prepare, implement rules that would make the country safer. and so i have two reactions to what you're saying. on the one hand it seems evident to me, as i've watched events unfold this week in boston, that we have learned. we are better at this than we were before. that's not to blame folks on 9/11. that was a different scale attack. it's the first time we dealt with it. any time you deal with something the first time you're not going to be very good at it. but it's clear that w
that i served in the senate choking or half joking that jim demint should run for president. this is not exactly what i had in mind. perhaps he misunderstood me. the thing that makes jim demint a great leader is the same thing that has always made people like max balding and the heritage foundation so valuable. you are sharing assistance on making a positive case for conservatives, what conservatives are for. in washington is common for both parties to succumb to easy negativity. republicans and democrats are opposed to each other in an outspoken partisanship. it is what almost gets the most headlines. this negativity is not appealing on both sides. that helps explain why the government is increasingly held in such beauregard by the american people. for the left, the defensive crouch at least makes sense. liberalism's main purpose is to defend its past gains from conservative reform. negativity on the right to my mind makes no sense at all. the left has created this false narrative liberals are for things and conservatives are against things. when we concede this narrative w
of the other questions have been asked. mouest -- yesterday in tntitellige had a briefing by jim clapper on thedg goingforwd. he produced a chart which basically showed, started with fy 2012 and show the effects of the various -- the first sequester and the ongoing sequester, the president's budget and other things that have affected that. it was a very powerful chart. i would ask of you could check with him, perhaps, chart number 11. visual a similar breakdown of what your budget thes like, including sequester on an ongoing basis. what does it do if we don't do anything about it? filed the suit for richelieu -- i found this information to be ry important. the munitions in the amount of funds available. the hobbled to see that data over the next 10 years, building in different places. look at the chart and you'll see what i am saying. >> we will. on thisther comment will sequester and budget. know this as well as i do. one of the first things you have to do in this situation is deferred maintenance. that is not saving. a cost someone will have to pay in the future. i am sure you agree. >
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4